[throwaway35784]

The discussing of ethics is at the very end, summarized by the influence of investors:

> The investors are optimizing for growth rates because that’s how you get the big multiple and that’s how you get the biggest bang for an IPO. I’m not a big fan of these methods, because most of the time, the large valuations are based on the premise and promise that these companies will dominate the market that they’re in, capture a monopoly and then one day, once they have eradicated every competitor and become the top dog that dominates everyone, they can raise prices because customers will have nowhere to go and that’s when they make money. Is that an aspirational place for us to be, that we should be cheering on monopolists who are cornering markets and then when we have eradicated all competitors, they raise rents? That’s not a very appealing prospect to me. I’d much rather see healthy marketplaces where there’s lots of different providers.

If you want to be ethical, don't take money from those who care about nothing but getting more money.

Greed is not good.

[scarface74]

Basecamp is not a non profit. Of course they also care about making more money. If I recall correctly, everyone’s compensation there is based partially on profit sharing. They are feeding starving children in Africa.

And that’s not meant to be a value judgement. I think a company that has a business model of getting $x amount money from customers and spending $y where $x > $y is much better aligned with customers than a company where $y > $x, they are subsidized by VCs, and the company’s ultimate goal is to be acquired or pawn their money losing business off onto the public markets.

[throwaway35784]

The key is to care about more than just money.

[scarface74]

Of course I meant that they are not feeding starving children in Africa.